On the heels of a successful Christian film, War Room, is another Christian film about faith, Woodlawn. I predict that this new film will do well as more people hear about it from word of mouth.

The movie is a powerful story of what happened in the early 1970s at Woodlawn High School in Birmingham, Alabama. Racial conflict broke out because of government-mandated desegregation. In the midst of this, Hank brings a gospel message to the football team. More than 40 of them give their lives to Christ, and that changes the team and begins to change the high school and the community.

The football team begins to make a run at the state playoffs led in large part by their running back Tony Nathan (who later played at the University of Alabama and then for the Miami Dolphins). Not only is the dialogue realistic, the football scenes are realistic. Mark Ellis choreographed other movies like Any Given Sunday, Varsity Blues, and The Longest Yard and was consulted on this film.

The biblical message isn’t blunted in this film either. The movie’s tagline is: One Hope. One Truth. One Way. This is obviously a reference to John 14:6. Key to the spiritual revival is the message Hank brings to the team after attending Explo 72 in Dallas and hearing a message by Billy Graham in the Cotton Bowl.

I had DeVon Franklin (President of Franklin Entertainment) in my radio studio to talk about the film. He plays the black preacher in the movie and was excited that the film is coming out at the time when racial tensions and violence are in the news. The revival that took place in Woodlawn shows how the gospel brought a level of racial unity to Birmingham. We need that message today.

We are blessed that there are a number of positive, Christian movies in the theaters. Now we need to go out and support them

When the framers drafted our constitution, they wanted to make sure there were enough checks and balances to protect the citizens from any abuse of power. One of those checks was the constitutional power given to the House of Representatives to impeach anyone who abused their office. Sadly, this check on power is rarely used anymore.

George Will, in a recent column, makes a compelling case for the House of Representatives to impeach the current IRS director. Executive officers can be impeached for three reasons. The current IRS director is 3 for 3. He can be impeached for dereliction of duty because he failed to disclose the disappearance of the IRS emails germane to the congressional investigation. He can be impeached for failure to comply because he and his agency have not complied with the investigation. And he can be impeached for breach of trust because of his refusal to testify accurately before Congress and due to his failure to keep his promises to Congress.

Representative Jason Chaffetz is the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He says the IRS has “lied to Congress” and “destroyed documents under subpoena.” He has accused the IRS chairman of “lies, obfuscation and deceit.”

On my radio program, I have interviewed many of the conservative groups who Lois Lerner and other IRS employees kept from obtaining their tax-exempt status. When Congress requested the emails of Lois Lerner, the IRS director complained that it would be a time-consuming effort. Meanwhile, Congress discovered that the backup tapes of the 24,000 Lerner emails were destroyed.

There is more than enough evidence to warrant impeachment proceedings against the IRS director. The House should impeach even if the Senate may not be willing to convict. At the very least the impeachment proceedings will force the mainstream media to cover the IRS abuse.

With of all the congressional spending, there have been some e-mails circulating with common sense sayings written by wise people long ago. One of those is the ten “you cannots.” If you have not seen them, here they are:

1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

Over the years they have been incorrectly attributed to Abraham Lincoln. Actually they were written in 1916 by the Reverend William Boetcker, a Presbyterian clergyman and pamphlet writer. The confusion stemmed from a pamphlet published in 1942 entitled “Lincoln on Limitations.” The pamphlet had a Lincoln quote on one side and these statements by the Boetcker on the other side.

There is wisdom in these ten “you cannots.” Unfortunately, we live in a world today that really believes we can help one part of society by harming another part of society. We need to listen to this wise pastor before we enact more legislation that attempts to help some by harming others.

Every time there is a shooting, we hear lots of debate about guns and gun control. Then we all face the reality that not much will change. The debate subsides and we turn to other topics until the next shooting.

The shooting in Oregon brought two new topics to the table that hadn’t been voiced in the past. This time, for example, we heard about the need to implement “common sense gun-safety laws.” Some of us are waiting for what those laws might be. We already have significant background checks in Oregon. That did not stop the Roseburg shooter. His mother obtained the guns legally. So did the mother of the shooter in Sandy Hook.

Common sense laws certainly couldn’t mean another so-called “assault weapons ban.” We tried that in 1994 and ten years later it ended. Every study done on the impact of the ban concluded that it did not reduce gun violence.

Another new topic on the gun control table was Australia. President Obama cited the laws in Australia as a model for America. When he said that, I mentioned on radio that this could be a code for something more than extensive background checks. Most news outlets merely mention that Australia had a gun buyback and fail to mention it was mandatory. In other words, when the president made a reference to Australia, he was talking about gun confiscation.

I didn’t hear many commentators pick up on that point, and I began to wonder if I had made a mistake. So I was glad to see that columnist Charles Krauthammer did focus on that in his op-ed, “What Gun-Control Advocates Mean but Dare Not Say: Guns Should be Confiscated.”

This is something you might want to remember the next time you hear someone calling for “common sense gun-safety laws.” If they say we should model our laws on Australia, they are probably talking about gun confiscation. If so, then we need some straight talk from them about what they propose.

One question I get when out speaking is: What can our country do about ISIS? Most Americans are not excited about committing ground troops, but they also realize that ISIS has become such a threat that something must be done.

President Vladimir Putin has committed troops supposedly to battle ISIS, but it appears that is not his actual plan. Many commentators say Russian troops are in Syria because of the weak responses from this president and his administration. Putin and other leaders have concluded that America (at least at the moment) poses no threat to their desires.

Russian troops have actually been bombing groups that this administration describes as Syrian moderates. I am not so sure they are moderates. Instead, we need to work with our true allies in the region. That would be the Kurds and the Peshmerga. They are long-standing allies of America but unfortunately are using outmoded weapons.

The major roadblock to effectively arming the Kurds is the Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act. Kurdistan is not a fully independent nation. Therefore the U.S. must coordinate arms transfers through the Iraqi government in Baghdad. That is why ISIS often has better weapons than the Peshmerga. Somehow this this military imbalance must change.

America must also work with other allies in the region (like Israel and Jordan) to fight ISIS. And we should use the significant air advantage that we have over ISIS. If Russia won’t bomb ISIS into submission, we need to do so. We are kidding ourselves if we think that Russia will be a partner in fighting terrorism. Currently they are supporting Iran, which is probably the largest sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East.

I wish I could give you easy answers. There are no easy answers in the Middle East right now. Supporting our allies and arming the Kurds will be more effective than what we are doing now.

Is voting in this country a right or a privilege? I would say that it is both. We should never deny anyone who is eligible to vote the right to vote. But it is also a privilege, and that is why I am concerned with voter laws being proposed and sometimes being enacted around the country.

One major push is for what is called “automatic registration.” We saw the beginning of this decades ago with the National Voter Registration Act, often called the Motor Voter Law. If you have been to your state department of motor vehicles to renew your license, you know what I am talking about. You are given the opportunity to register to vote while you renewing your license.

This option has made is possible for many people to register to vote who may never actually vote in any election. Voter fraud is much easier. All someone has to do is find people on the voter rolls that are registered but never or rarely vote in elections. Then you can go into the polls and pretend to be that person. Or you can request an absentee ballot and send it in pretending to be that person.

Now some state legislatures have legislation pending that calls for “universal registration.” If enacted, this would require that anyone who gets a license or renews a license would automatically be registered to vote. It is bad enough that we make it much too easy to register to vote. Imagine what would happen if someone did not even have to take a moment to fill out a voter registration card, if instead they were automatically registered to vote.

And let’s not forget that earlier this year President Obama talked about “mandatory voting.” Some countries have mandatory voting, and he would like to see something like that in the United States.

Voting is both a right and a privilege. But I’m not ready to give that privilege to someone who won’t even take a few minutes to fill out a voter registration card. And I am concerned that these proposals will make voter fraud even easier.

How influential could Christian voters be in the next election? Their participation could be significant if they are registered to vote and then go out and vote their values in an intelligent way. Recently Gary Frazier and George Barna were on my radio program to talk about their work through the organization, United in Purpose.

Let’s look at Christian voter participation in 2012. There were 90 million born again Christians of voting age. About 77 million of them were registered to vote. And 51 million of them voted in that election.

That means there were 39 million eligible Christian voters who did not vote or were not registered to vote in 2012. The 39 million break down this way: 13 million were not registered and 26 million were registered but did not go to the polls.

Perhaps you can see the problem. When you have 39 million Christians who did not vote, it is like a high school football team where many of the players aren’t even wearing the uniform. And then there are others who are wearing the uniform but never get into the game.

In previous elections, United in Purpose has worked to identify Christians who did not vote but have biblical values. They understand that many Christians do not have a biblical worldview. Using massive databases that cross-reference, they able to identify nonvoters with a pro-life, pro-family perspective and then encourage them to pledge to vote in the next election.

They are also encouraging pastors to address the moral and social issues of the day. Surveys of born again Christians show that members of their congregations want biblical instruction on contemporary issues, but pastors are often afraid or ill equipped to address those issues.

It will be interesting to watch how these various programs of voter registration, get out the vote, and pastor support affect the 2016 election. We should see greater impact on the nation and our culture because of Christian involvement.

Student debt is a major problem today for the younger generation, and it has become a significant campaign issue. A recent op-ed by Susan Dynarski in the New York Times changed my perspective on the issue of student debt.

Let’s consider the basic numbers. Politicians often cite two numbers: one trillion and seven million. Student borrowers owe more than $1 trillion. Seven million of these borrowers are in default. It is tempting to connect these two facts and conclude that more debt leads to more default. That is not the case.

It turns out that the biggest borrowers tend to become the highest earners. Students with the smallest debts are the ones who actually have a bigger problem paying it back.

For example, borrowing is the highest for people who go to graduate school. Forty percent of new loans go to graduate students. Those who graduate from medical school or law school generally have high salaries and are therefore able to pay back their student loans. Their percentage of default is much lower than for other students who took out loans for college.

Even college graduates do fairly well in repaying their loans. The typical college graduate earns tens of thousands of dollars more each year than the typical high school graduate. Their default percentage is relatively low as well.

The highest percentage of student defaults are concentrated among the millions of students who go to college but drop out before they get a degree. They have smaller debts than many of the other students I have mentioned, but they also have the highest rate of default on student loans.

There is a policy application to these numbers. We shouldn’t be trying to get all students to borrow less. Those going to graduate school or planning to graduate with a marketable degree are a much lower risk. This is an important fact to keep in mind when politicians talk about student debt and even propose free tuition.